4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Košice.
5.  In 1975 the applicant concluded a contract with a co‑operative pursuant to which the latter was to build a family house for him.
6.  In 1977 the applicant lodged a civil action against the co‑operative with the Košice City Court (Mestský súd) seeking a judicial ruling determining the date when the house was to be handed over.
7.  On 12 May 1978 the City Court discontinued the proceedings. It observed that, at a hearing held on 12 April 1978, the applicant had withdrawn the action. Although the applicant’s lawyer was not present at that hearing, a copy of the decision was served on him. As no appeal was lodged, the decision became final and binding on 11 July 1978.
8.  In 1981 the applicant and the judge dealing with the action of 1977 were found guilty of bribery in connection with the case and sentenced to imprisonment.
9.  On 24 June 1992 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) declared the applicant’s “appeal” of 21 April 1992 against the decision of 12 May 1978 inadmissible as being out of time.
10.  On 27 July 1995 the applicant lodged an action against the Ministry of Justice as the State with the Košice II District Court (Okresný súd). He alleged that the decision of 12 May 1978 was arbitrary. The District Court had intentionally overlooked that at the hearing of 12 April 1978, the applicant had withdrawn the power of attorney from his lawyer. The service on the lawyer of a copy of the decision of 12 May 1978 was thus unlawful. It deprived the applicant of the opportunity to challenge the decision by a timely appeal. Considering that these facts amounted to wrongful official conduct resulting in an unlawful decision, the applicant claimed damages under the State Liability Act of 1969 (Law no. 58/1969 Coll. - “the 1969 Act”). He later supplemented his claim four times, in particular, by claiming that the decision of 12 May 1978 should be quashed as being illegal.
11.  In December 1995 the applicant informed the Košice II District Court that he had moved to another address. As his new address was in the judicial district of the Košice I District Court, the action was transferred to it in April 1996.
12.  On 13 February 1997 and 11 November 1998 the Košice I District Court held hearings.
13.  On 2 June 1999 the Košice I District Court dismissed the action. It observed that, pursuant to sections 3 and 4 (1) of the 1969 Act, damage resulting from a wrongful official decision could only be compensated if that decision had been quashed by the competent body in a prescribed procedure. As the decision of 12 May 1978 had not been quashed, compensation for any damage allegedly inflicted thereby was out of the question. The District Court further found that the applicant had failed to prove his allegation of having withdrawn the power of attorney from his lawyer. The serving of the decision of 12 May 1978 on the applicant’s lawyer had been in conformity with Article 49 § 1 of the Code of the Civil Procedure and no wrongful official conduct had been established in this connection. The District Court finally noted that, in any event, in the criminal proceedings leading to his conviction in 1981 the applicant had clearly stated several times that he had withdrawn his civil action of 1977.
14.  In July 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 2 June 1999. He objected to the factual findings and legal conclusions of the District Court.
15.  On 6 February 2002, following a hearing of the appeal held on the same day, the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 2 June 1999. It fully endorsed the factual findings and the legal reasoning given by the District Court. A copy of the Regional Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 18 April 2002 and no appeal lay against it.
16.  On 29 January 1992 Mrs B.M., the mother of the applicant, brought an action against the Ministry of Justice as the State in the Košice II District Court. She claimed damages in connection with convictions, in the 1950s, of her late husband, Mr Š.M., for various offences against the socialist economic system. These convictions were later quashed under the Judicial Rehabilitations Act of 1990 (Law no. 119/1990 Coll. - “the 1990 Act”). Mrs B.M. submitted a power of attorney in favour of the applicant to represent her in the proceedings.
17.  A part of the claim was dismissed by a final decision of the Regional Court on 21 November 1995 as it had no basis in law.
18.  In a letter of 21 May 1996 Mrs B.M. submitted a further specification of the remainder of her claim. She divided it into partial claims concerning other family members. In a letter of 10 July 1996, however, she expressly stated that she was not seeking an admission of the other family members to the action as claimants.
19.  On 27 March 1997 Mrs B.M. died. On 14 November 1997 the applicant requested that he and 7 other members of the family be allowed to continue the action in her stead.
20.  The inheritance proceedings in respect of the estate of Mrs B.M. were ended by a decision of a public notary on 25 January 1999. The sole heir to the estate was Mrs A.M., a daughter of Mrs B.M.
21.  On 28 January 2002 the District Court dismissed the remaining part of the action as unsubstantiated. It noted that Mrs A.M. had succeeded to the rights and obligations of the original plaintiff, Mrs B.M, and continued the litigation in her place. The applicant and other family members were not parties to the proceedings, although the applicant continued to be involved as the plaintiff’s representative.
22.  On 15 March 2002 Mrs A.M. challenged the judgment of 28 January 2002 by an appeal. The appeal was signed by the applicant and indicated expressly that he was acting as the representative for Mrs A.M.
23.  On 10 February 2003, on the plaintiff’s appeal, the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 28 January 2002. No further appeal was available.
24.  In July 2003 the applicant turned to the Constitutional Court with a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution. In his own name, he alleged a violation of various aspects of his right to judicial protection set forth in Articles 46 et seq. of the Constitution in the proceedings in the action of 1992.
25.  On 19 November 2003 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. It observed that the formal claimants in the action had been Mrs B.M. and Mrs A.M. The applicant was merely their representative. No procedural rights of his own were at issue. There could thus be no interference with his constitutional rights which he had invoked.